1/8 US High School Biology Teachers Present Creationism as Scientific Alternative

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Your church isn't taxed and you don't pay taxes on your tithes. You are already subsidized by the state. Frankly, I want that money back.

So now, the fact that the number of robberies I have suffered from has been less than the statistical average for my group means that I am being subsidised by the criminal world?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MattBowron
apologies GePap if my ideas of what you call creation myth + science = bogus

.........................


Or is this merely philosophy?

You seem to be operating under the misconception that there is a debate about evolution occuring here. Actually, it's what I refer to as Kenobi-bashing which involves BK versus various leftie-liberal-commie-pinko-types. Sometimes it's fun, and sometimes it's sad, but it's not actually a discourse between polytubbies.

Thats not to say that I agree with BK either.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are also many other problems with some of your statements but this distinction that you keep trying to make is the most obvious one. There is no qualitative difference between macro or micro evolution.

Between differentiation and speciation? One is well observed and attested, the other is merely assumed to occur as the 'logical extension' of the former. What if that isn't the case? Dogs and wolves can still interbreed, even though they are very different from each other. What if the two operate on fundamentally different assumptions? That would be a productive starting point.

If you accept that this change can bring "racial" differences, which it seems you do, you have to accept that it also brings "special" differences as there is no definite qualitative difference between races or subspecies and species.

I acknowledge differentiation as a true fact, it has been well demonstrated, and it is exactly Darwin's inspiration for the origin of species. The problem is that we cannot show speciation to the same degree of accuracy. What if it is like a rubber band, and while you can stretch things, there are natural limits that cannot be crossed?We don't know because we haven't done enough work there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Le Chatelier's principle:
"If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or total pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to partially counter-act the imposed change."

That's part of it, and it is very significant that a reaction at equilibrium isn't static, rather it is dynamic. You simply have two reactions going at equal rates to one another. You can predict the concentration and composition after a certain period of time given environmental controls. You cannot do the same with Darwin's theories of evolution.

Second law of thermodynamics:
"The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

Again, you can make very significant predictions from this principle. I don't see how saying "species adapt when faced with selective pressures" derives similarly useful predictions.

[Ben Kenobi]

THAT IS THE POINT!!!. The process by which change occurs can be explained, but the very chaotic nature of space and time makes it impossible to know how life will respond and change in accordance with what is a chaotic universe.

So what is the first principle of science? Controlling natural variables to isolate the principles involved. We clearly have not done that with evolution to determine exactly how selective pressures work.

A theory does not need to explain final ourcomes, only to explain those processes we see in action and explain the current shape of the natural world. Evolution does that, it does that marvelously.

What, when any change at all fulfills the predictions? Science experiments have to make a hypothesis as to what changes they should expect to see and why. That way it can be disproven. Darwinism doesn't do the same.

Except that there is no biological evidence whatsover to claim that mutations are anything but random. Can you present ANY evidence of mutations following some pattern???? Mutations are mistakes made in copying a vast and complex data set using physical means.

Which is simply confirming our ignorance. The planets wander you know, there is no rhyme or reason to their patterns.

How could the entire theory of evolution be disproven from just a single piece of evidence regarding one single species?

Why not? That is what happens to real scientific theories.

There are ongoing arguements about the history of any number of specific species, yes, but what species came into existance when does not challenge the theory of evolution as a whole because that theory explains a process and it is not directly tied to any one product of that process.

Exactly, which is why it isn't a scientific theory. Anything goes so long as it is perceived as 'change', it fits. They even manage to explain away things like Crocodiles as being remarkably unchanged, as apparently it doesn't matter either, since Darwinism is like silly putty. It bends and moulds itself to match every situation you encounter.

how would you be able to argue that that skull had not evolved from earlier apes living say 70 million years ago?

Exactly my point, and thank you. Evolution therefore is NOT falsifiable. I could not explain it otherwise, because there is no evidence supporting ancestry with older apes at 70 million years, other then the creative imaginaton of evolutionary biologists.

Do you realize Ben that you have no valid logical way to make the argument that there has not been "enough time to evolve intelligent life here on earth" as you claim, because you have no other example to argue with.

Ok, I'm glad you asked that. Yes, it is possible to explain that you don't have enough time assuming random chance mutations to evolve all the way from protein muck to human beings. Not even 5 billion years is enough time. Most if not all evolutionary biologists admit that their models completely break down if you go far back enough in time, and that they can't explain how it works. Dawkins himself believes that aliens came to earth and deposited their seed which is rather kinky if you think about it.

Do you know how many possibilities there are out there and how hard it is just to form a protein from the constituent parts? You don't even have time for that if the only thing going on is random mutations.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's not Popper's definition, but Francis Bacon's. It is up to the theory itself to make predictions that can be challenged. It would be like darwinian evolution predicting that humans will become less hairy after a specific period of time. That is a prediction that can be tested, and would qualify as falsifiable.

You are incorrect, not that this should surprise anyone.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What income? Say he claims 30k and makes twice that, the remainder of which is given back to the community.

The government will know.

[Ben Kenobi]

How so? Popper formulated the one which we are all familiar there, but the same idea is present in Bacon's method too.

There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.

Which is inductive reasoning. How does Darwinism derive general axioms that may be used to make predicative statements about the nature of the world?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So now, the fact that the number of robberies I have suffered from has been less than the statistical average for my group means that I am being subsidised by the criminal world?

take your libertarian **** somewhere were people care.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So now, the fact that the number of robberies I have suffered from has been less than the statistical average for my group means that I am being subsidised by the criminal world?

No.


Since you are paying protection money.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Which is inductive reasoning. How does Darwinism derive general axioms that may be used to make predicative statements about the nature of the world?

Very simply, we know that species will adapt to selective pressures. We don't have enough information to predict how that adaptation will work. You might as well claim meteorology isn't science, because it can only make very immediate or very general predictions.

We might know that a particular storm system may produce tornadoes, but we can't say for certain it will happen nor where they will be produced.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Between differentiation and speciation? One is well observed and attested, the other is merely assumed to occur as the 'logical extension' of the former. What if that isn't the case?

You completely missed the point!
I am not even arguing whether one or the other has been observed or not, I am pointing out the well-accepted biological fact that there is no qualitative difference between the terms themselves!

In other words, it is a problem of definition: there is no qualitative difference in definition between a "species" and any "lower" difference ("subspecies", "race" whatever).


I explicitly said earlier that "species" was ill-defined and gave you a wiki link about the species problem, yet you ignored all of this and decide to repeat your mantra rather than address the (obvious and well-known) problems with the very words you are using.

I'm not sure if it's because you are skimming posts or you have reading problems but you are making it hard to have a serious discussion.


Ok, one more time, I'll try make it easier.

Suppose we observe "differentiation" over time. Say a population splits with the pieces drifting apart genetically. What is the criterion to decide whether this is speciation or simply "differentiation"?

In even simpler term, what is a species?


Before you answer, you might want to read about the species problem.


Or you can just ignore my question and repeat your rambling that we have observed "differentiation" but not "speciation". I'll hook you up with some guy who claims to have observed (2+2) goats but not 4 goats and you can argue with him.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You can predict the concentration and composition after a certain period of time given environmental controls.

Not from Le Chatelier's principle, you can't. Even less about the rate of shift towards the new equilibrium.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, you can make very significant predictions from this principle.

Again you cannot make any significant predictions from the principle itself.


0/2.


The point being that these are general SCIENTIFIC principles. They do not make any specific predictions about any particular case.

Similarly, Darwinism doesn't make a prediction about the length of cat's tails but it can provide the proper framework for studying such questions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So what is the first principle of science? Controlling natural variables to isolate the principles involved. We clearly have not done that with evolution to determine exactly how selective pressures work.

Actually, Science is a method of studying the physical world through empirical observation and experimentation, not whatever the hell you just claimed. As for selective pressures, of course we know what kind of pressures exists.

What, when any change at all fulfills the predictions? Science experiments have to make a hypothesis as to what changes they should expect to see and why. That way it can be disproven. Darwinism doesn't do the same.

False. It would be possible to set up experiments in evolution. In fact, the growth of resistant bacteria is a perfect example of evolution at work. The selective pressure of course were anti-biotics, and the bacteria evolved, with the ones that happened to have a random immunity to whatever toxin living and multiplying happily free from competition.

Which is simply confirming our ignorance. The planets wander you know, there is no rhyme or reason to their patterns.

Excuse me, but what the hell do planetary orbits have to do with you being completely incapable of showing any evidence whatsoever that mutations are anything but random?

Exactly, which is why it isn't a scientific theory. Anything goes so long as it is perceived as 'change', it fits. They even manage to explain away things like Crocodiles as being remarkably unchanged, as apparently it doesn't matter either, since Darwinism is like silly putty. It bends and moulds itself to match every situation you encounter.

There is no need to "explain away" why crocodiles ( or sharks) are relative unchanged for vast amounts of time- species are not looking to change, they change if they have to change to survive. If a species like a crocodile or a shark reaches a certain point in which its design is so successful that it can withstand a large amount of environmental change, then there is no real pressure for it to change. That you are clearly unaware of that shows just how bad your understanding of evolutionary theory is.

Ok, I'm glad you asked that. Yes, it is possible to explain that you don't have enough time assuming random chance mutations to evolve all the way from protein muck to human beings. Not even 5 billion years is enough time. Most if not all evolutionary biologists admit that their models completely break down if you go far back enough in time, and that they can't explain how it works. Dawkins himself believes that aliens came to earth and deposited their seed which is rather kinky if you think about it.

Nice BAM there Ben. Care to back up that statement with proof of what you say?

Do you know how many possibilities there are out there and how hard it is just to form a protein from the constituent parts? You don't even have time for that if the only thing going on is random mutations.

I won't waste my time with you on this thread any longer because it is obvious that you have made up your mind to ignore the science out there.